Durney v Victoria University - [2013] VSC 280

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2012 06363

PAUL DURNEY	Plaintiff
v
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR PETER DAWKINS PROFESSOR GREGORY BAXTER	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 May 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Durney v Victoria University & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 280

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review- Applications in the nature of certiorari – Applications for injunctions – Multiple proceedings – Multiple applications for interlocutory relief – Unrepresented litigant – Repetitive and voluminous material - Trial management.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the Defendants	Ms P.C. Knowles	Minter Ellison

HIS HONOUR:

Background

Paul Durney, the plaintiff, is a student enrolled in a law course at Victoria University. On 24 October 2012, Mr Durney was sent a letter dated 19 October 2012. The letter was written by Professor Peter Dawkins, the second defendant. The letter provided:

Dear Mr Durney
I have read and considered your communications of 21 September and 4 October 2012 which were in response to Professor Gregory Baxter’s letter to you of 29 August and my letter to you of 14 September 2012.
I note that your replies to me do not address the incidents which are of concern, and make no comment in relation to your own behaviour.
Recent behaviour
Since my last letter to you I have been alerted to the following further incidents:
·On 10 October 2012 you lay on the ground at the main entrance to the Victoria Law School on Little Lonsdale Street with a bag covering your head. Police and an ambulance attended and removed you. You returned later in the day and lay in the same position with a bag covering your head.
·On 16 October 2012 you attended at the Victoria Law School reception desk and then at the law library. You raised your voice at library staff and at another student. You then lay at the main entrance point to the Victoria Law School on Little Lonsdale Street with a cloth bag over your head and a noose around your neck, attached to the steel railings. Police attended and you were removed by ambulance.

Exclusion from Victoria University
I have regretfully come to the conclusion that, due to the impact of your behaviour on other members of the university community, it is necessary to exclude you from the University premises in order to maintain a safe environment for staff and other students.
Pursuant to Victoria University’s regulation 10.2, you are now excluded from being on, in or using any or all premises of Victoria University.
Arrangements for continuation of your studies
I understand that you are currently studying two subjects in the Faculty of Business and Law. In order to minimise the impact on your studies, a staff member from that Faculty will contact you in due course to make arrangements for you…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Durney v Victoria University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] VSC 280
Decision Date: 28 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Durney v Victoria University, recently determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria, involved an application for judicial review and interlocutory relief by the plaintiff, who was unrepresented, against Victoria University. The plaintiff, Durney, sought review of certain administrative decisions made by the university, particularly those related to academic matters and alleged breaches of procedural fairness. The university contested the application, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were vexatious and that the case was an abuse of process due to the repetitive nature of the applications and the volume of material submitted.

The court was required to address several key legal issues, including whether the plaintiff's repetitive and voluminous submissions constituted an abuse of process, and whether the court should grant the interlocutory relief sought by the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate management of the case, given the plaintiff's unrepresented status and the complexity of the issues at hand. The court also needed to balance the plaintiff's right to access justice with the need to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process.

In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's numerous and repetitive applications, coupled with the extensive and duplicative material submitted, amounted to an abuse of process. The court emphasised that while it is committed to ensuring access to justice, it cannot tolerate proceedings that are used to harass or delay the opposing party. The court also noted the challenges posed by the plaintiff's unrepresented status, but held that this did not excuse the conduct that led to the conclusion of abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and imposed costs on the plaintiff. The court further indicated that it would consider further orders to manage the proceedings if the plaintiff continued with similar conduct.

Orders